ECOPOTENTIAL: Improving Future Ecosystem Benefits through Earth Observations

2 Synthesis Report Findings

2.1 Basic summary of responses received Of the twenty-two total Protected Areas participating in the ECOPOTENTIAL project, nineteen responses were received, from twelve (of fourteen) mountain ecosystems, six (of seven) coastal/marine and five (of five) arid/semi-arid. (Please note that some Protected Areas represent more than one ecosystem type, explaining the discrepancy in the total sum of responses (see Appendix 2.) The responses to the questionnaire varied in their completeness and the level of voluntary detail provided but all responses contributed to this analysis. The issue of who was responsible for completing the questionnaire in each of the Protected Areas is relevant for two reasons. First, it was the objective of the study that decisionmakers would be filling out the questionnaire but this happened in a minority of cases only. Second, the range of roles held by the respondents (which included protected area manager, researcher, IT personnel, and other park staff) will have influenced the detail and type of data provided and thus the potential for drawing refined conclusions. Analyses were done as best as possible given the amount of data generated by the questionnaire. However, more detailed or more precise analysis was difficult due to the low number of total responses. As stated above, a full blank questionnaire can be found in the appendices of Deliverable 11.1. Here, in Appendix 1, we provide only the questions applicable to this report. Appendix 2 details the list of questionnaire respondents with basic details of the associated Protected Area (also found in the Deliverable 11.1 appendices).

2.2 Mountain ecosystems 2.2.1 Overview of the Mountain Protected Areas Fourteen Mountain Protected Areas are included in the project, twelve of which responded to the questionnaire, including Samaria National Park which is classified as both arid/semi-arid and mountainous.

Mountain Protected Areas

Hardangervidda Nasjonalpark

1

Lake Ohrid

2

Swiss National Park

3

Caldera de Taburiente – La Palma

4

Natura 2000 – La Palma

5

Lake Prespa

6

Tatra Mountains

7

Samaria National Park

8

Gran Paradiso National Park

9

Kalkalpen National Park

10

Sierra Nevada

11

Peneda-Gerês

12

Abisko – no response

13

Bayerischer Wald – no response

14

Objectives of the Protected Areas The main objectives of the Protected Areas are protecting the ecosystems and their natural processes, including biodiversity, endemism, key species and habitats. Cultural services appear to be a second priority and these include recreation, education, research, and cultural heritage. Other ecosystem services provided were generally not identified as immediate priorities (apart from two of twelve Protected Areas noting the protection of fresh water resources as an aim). Provisioning of ecosystem services is not formally recognized in the objectives of the Protected Areas. The reason for this may be that the ecosystem services approach is still in its early stages of development and was not prevalent at the time when the Protected Areas were established. Earth Observation was also not used in the creation of the Protected Areas. Some respondents

Fox and reindeer in Hardangervidda National Park, Norway.

9